Hardship, Loss of Job, Trouble, Etc. Do Not Equal = Truth

Those of you keeping up with Roman Catholic apologetics may have come across Dr. White's recent entry, Jason Stellman’s Unmitigated Disaster.

Mr. Stellman's entry documented his hardship since joining Rome, and then ends with his own version of Here I Stand, I can do no other.

Then throughout the few hundred comments, this sort of sentiment is repeated often:


"I don’t have any great words of wisdom that you don’t already know as well as anyone, that your reward will be great in heaven. I know that is often of little consolation when our temporal challenges (what you called “humanly speaking”) seem so overwhelming. But we receive our salvation “humanly speaking” as well; it is our humanness that is redeemed!"

"Jason Stellman, You are not alone. We all have to suffer friend. Count your blessings and look to heaven. You never know what God has in store for you next."

"However, we all need these times in our life to be tested, tried and prepared… It takes suffering to bring forth joy. It takes labor to have a baby, it takes time, effort and so much pain to win a race. It took the stations of the cross for us to have salvation… So just be sure this is all for your benefit (Rom 8,28), you will handle it and you’ll be stronger and wiser."

"You have my greatest respect, Jason. Since my husband and I converted several years ago we have heard from a number of fellow Protestant ministers who admit they feel called to Rome, but they don’t follow the call out of fear for their finances. I have almost given up hope for most of them and fear for their souls since they seem to be saying no to Christ in this way. I hope they will turn in time. But you did not count the cost. You saw Jesus in the blessed sacrament and followed Him. He is our life and hope. I know He will lead you into greener pastures."

And these comments go on and on.

A few years ago a friend of mine struggled for years to take care of his family and pay his bills. After years of struggling in the ministry, he finally landed a decent job as an assistant pastor in a non-denominational church. Then after a few years, the senior pastor retired, and named him as his successor. If I recall correctly, the job paid somewhere between $75,000 and $100,000. It included a nice house, health insurance, and a retirement package. This wasn't a mega church, but a small congregation in a nice area. And he lived happily ever after...

No, he didn't live happily ever after. Things were going smoothly until after studying a particular theological issue, he ended up preaching heresy from the pulpit. The church fired him, and the entire thing ravaged the small congregation. He did not go willingly, but rather convinced he was being persecuted for the truth. With the particular heresy he embraced, he found himself a new set of friends that gave him the same sort of sentiment documented above. He began writing for this heretical movement- even giving his testimony (for lack of a better word) of how he was booted unjustly from his church for embracing the "truth." He had a podcast. He had a blog (actually a few blogs). He was part of a radio network embracing this particular heresy, etc.

Suffering is a tricky thing. I have a friend of mine at church who has severe health problems, as does his wife. It's amazing they're still alive. He rarely mentions it. In fact, I have to pry it out of him at times to find out how he's doing. On the other hand, Stellman says: "To be honest, I don’t really know why I am posting this. I know for a fact that much of the information I am divulging will be received with glee from many in the Calvinistic world." I think it's fairly obvious why it was posted.

I don't consider myself gleeful about anything Mr. Stellman posted. I don't wish for my friend, the heretic he is- to be without income, unable to provide for his family, or excommunicated from the church. Neither do I wish those things for Mr. Stellman. But, my basic point is that struggle and hardship as the result of theological convictions do not equal truth. People have been persecuted for religious beliefs for hundreds of years- and some of these people were not even within the realm of Christian theism. I don't think my friend was thrown out of his church unjustly. Nor do I think Mr. Stellman's congregation excommunicated him unjustly.  Wherever my friend is now, with whatever struggle he's having- these are not because of the truth.

Losing Rome's converts

Magdi Allam, Muslim Convert, Leaves Catholic Church, Says It's Too Weak Against Islam

"Allam, who has called Islam an 'intrinsically violent ideology,' said his main reason for leaving the church was its perceived "religious relativism, in particular the legitimization of Islam as a true religion."

Roman Catholics Who Are Functional Protestants

I skimmed a few Roman Catholic blogs this morning, and found these two posts interesting:

Advice For the New Convert to Catholicism: Don't Join the Dreaded Liturgy Police

What to Expect When You’re Converting

Both of these posts provide exhortations to new Roman converts. The first link above explicitly challenges the type of new converts that consist of "a select group of Catholics, usually converts, who spent their lives as protestants looking for the perfect Church" and then once they enter Romanism, they begin pointing out problems:

My suggestion to new converts, particularly from evangelical protestant expressions is this: DON”T BECOME A PART OF THE DREADED LOCAL LITURGY POLICE! (DLLP) I can’t emphasize this enough as I have seen good solid evangelicals become good solid Catholics because protestantism wasn’t enough, but then before you know it, basic Catholicism wasn’t enough, so then they sought the tridentine mass (which is fine) but then before you know it, the novus ordo mass is barely licit and most Catholics in this parish are "sheeple" and the "bishop in my diocese are so liberal" and "Vatican 2 may or may not have been a valid council." This then leads to…sedesville, (sedevacantism) where the Church is not the Church and you have appointed yourself to know which popes are the valid ones…. this ultimately leads back to protesting, again, a full circle.

The second post states:

Watch Out for Wonkiness
No, not Willy Wonka and his delicious chocolate confections. Wonky people. Confused people, ones who do not believe in the Church’s teachings. Sometimes they are priests and nuns; sometimes liturgists and organists; sometimes Joe Catholic next to you in the pew.
It can be a shock to the system to encounter such persons, especially since you gave up a lot to become Catholic and can scarcely imagine why someone would remain in the Church who rejected her divine authority. Yet these persons exist, in need of prayer and love. Give them that, but do not let your faith be shaken by their doubts.

I can understand the concerns of both of these bloggers. On the other hand, I wonder if both of these bloggers are themselves aware of how still functionally Protestant they both are. Both of them are subjectively interpreting the Roman Catholic Church and assume their insights are the correct interpretation of all things Roman. For the first blogger, he's protesting against protesters.  The second blogger appears to think he can correctly interpret the magisterium while certain priests and nuns cannot. In essence, it's his interpretation of Roman Catholicism versus someone else's.

Addendum: Template For Conversion Story Apologetics
This is in regard to the use of conversion stories as an apologetic tool. The second blog entry uses the exact methodology I've been describing:

3. Write Down Your Story
And also write down the thoughts and emotions you have experienced in converting. Write down your mindset as a Protestant and how the paradigm shift occurred that led you to become Catholic. The central part of it is mysterious, unquantifiable, hidden in the heart of God and His grace. But you can commit to paper (or electronic ink) as much as you comprehend. It will be valuable later, for you certainly, maybe for others. You could start a blog right away if you feel called to. Or just jot them down on paper, or save them on the computer. Whatever medium you like is fine; the important thing is just to do it. It is easy to start forgetting (quite quickly) what it was like to not be Catholic.

For those people who use conversion stories as apologetic tools, I've decided to be helpful this morning, or rather, a bit ecumenical. Based on the template paragraph above, I've taken the time to prepare a few different versions of this paragraph to be cut-and-pasted by any who would like to use it on a blog.

Muslim Version
Write Down Your Story
And also write down the thoughts and emotions you have experienced in converting. Write down your mindset as a Chrsitian and how the paradigm shift occurred that led you to become Muslim. The central part of it is mysterious, unquantifiable, revealed by the prophet Mohammed. But you can commit to paper (or electronic ink) as much as you comprehend. It will be valuable later, for you certainly, maybe for others. You could start a blog right away if you feel called to. Or just jot them down on paper, or save them on the computer. Whatever medium you like is fine; the important thing is just to do it. It is easy to start forgetting (quite quickly) what it was like to not be Muslim.

Mormon Version
Write Down Your Story
And also write down the thoughts and emotions you have experienced in converting. Write down your mindset as a Chrsitian and how the paradigm shift occurred that led you to become Mormon. The central part of it is mysterious, unquantifiable, hidden in the heart of God and revealed by Joseph Smith. But you can commit to paper (or electronic ink) as much as you comprehend. It will be valuable later, for you certainly, maybe for others. You could start a blog right away if you feel called to. Or just jot them down on paper, or save them on the computer. Whatever medium you like is fine; the important thing is just to do it. It is easy to start forgetting (quite quickly) what it was like to not be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints.

Raëlism
Write Down Your Story
And also write down the thoughts and emotions you have experienced in converting. Write down your mindset as a member of a central religion and how the paradigm shift occurred that led you to a species of extraterrestrials called the Elohim. The central part of it is mysterious, unquantifiable, hidden in the heart of the Elohim revealed by the prophets and spaceships they send to earth. But you can commit to paper (or electronic ink) as much as you comprehend. It will be valuable later, for you certainly, maybe for others. You could start a blog right away if you feel called to. Or just jot them down on paper, or save them on the computer. Whatever medium you like is fine; the important thing is just to do it. It is easy to start forgetting (quite quickly) what it was like to not be a member of the Raëlian Church.

Responding to Criticism on Conversion Stories

Appetizer 
My typical negative stance on the "conversion story" doesn't only raise the ire of Roman Catholics, I've been in more than a few conversations with Protestant friends as well on this topic. I don't approve of conversion stories being used as apologetic tools, for the simple reason they are based on subjective experience. Someone else's experience is not the Gospel. God doesn't need the help of your "story" to evangelize. Often, if you boil down a "conversion story" it's simply a chance for a person to bring attention to themselves. People generally like talking about themselves (I include myself in this as well).  I know one particular person who will launch into her "conversion story" at any minute, especially with a new acquaintance.

In the worship service, I don't approve of someone bringing attention to themselves and their "story"- I don't really care about their story. I want Christ's story. Some people hold that at baptism, it's good for the person to tell their "story"- I disagree. Perhaps it's because I'm embarrassed at the sins I've committed against Christ. When I bring them up... it's like reminding the person you love how awful you've been against them.

As to dramatic conversion stories, I believe that "dead in sin" is "dead in sin." Each person, before regeneration is equally dead in sin. God then raises a person to spiritual life. Some people aren't more "dead" than others because they were a worse sinner. This pops their "conversion story balloon." Suppose Christ called Lazarus to life from the tomb, along with another person who was a bit more sinful. Which person being called forth from the tomb has the more dramatic testimony? Neither! Both are equally miraculous.

One serious problem with conversion stories that many people overlook is that while a person may claim the name of Christ as the end result of their dramatic story, this might not be the end of their story. Consider the radical Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver. After some time in prison, Mr. Cleaver had a dramatic conversion to Christianity. He then went on to check out the Moonies, and lastly ended up a Mormon. Or for those you old folks like me, remember in the late 1970's and early 1980's, Mike Warnke? Sure, he was a really funny Christian comedian. He was the ex-Satanic high priest turned Christian. He toured everywhere telling his dramatic story. Well, Cornerstone Magazine investigated him and tore his story to shreds. Or consider the recent Ergun Caner debacle. Here's one that hit close to home: a few years back I met a nice guy on the Internet through Dr. White's chat channel. If I recall, he had converted to Roman Catholicism, and was even interviewed by Marcus Grodi. When I met him in the chat channel, he would private message me often to talk about Roman Catholicism. He even sent me his 340 page book that documented his departure from Romanism and Orthodoxy back to being a Baptist. Well, he eventually went back to Orthodoxy.

On a positive note, I have no problem with getting to know someone and hearing their "story". This is fine over a cup of coffee. But please, keep your "story" out of the spotlight. If you want to tell a "story"- tell Christ's story.

Main course: CTC Conversion Stories
In terms of using conversion stories as apologetic tools, Roman Catholicism is overrun with stories. If ever there was a group of people that like talking about themselves, it's Roman Catholic converts. I've earlier described these folks as theologians of glory. Their conversion stories are typically examples of achievement and glory. They in essence point to the abilities of a person and the supposed wisdom gained by crossing the Tiber. They do not point to Christ---they point to a triumphal entry into an allegedly magnificent human institution: the Roman Catholic Church. Their conversion stories are about what they did. They are about what wisdom and glory they achieved. This is not the foolishness of the cross.

I assumed that when I posted CTC Conversion Stories comments and criticism would follow. One blog post was brought to my attention: Heads I win, Tails you lose. First, believe it or not, I'm grateful that someone took the time to read something I wrote and comment on it, even if I don't agree with the content of the response.  That being said, I offer the following as a counter-response.

1. The Roman Catholic blogger states, "So let me get this straight: Reformed conversion story = helpful retelling of true events. Catholic conversion story = Manipulation." What I wrote above as an appetizer should suffice. The majority of what's written above is not new material, but rather taken from the archives of this blog.

2. The Roman Catholic blogger states, "This website [CTC] is the reason I am Catholic. Not the only reason of course, but without it, I would not have converted. It is to me what tolle lege was to Saint Augustine. It is a very successful website in achieving its goal of bringing unity to Christians." This proves my point in my aomin entry: CTC often uses the "story" as the vehicle to entice you to look across the Tiber. CTC is does not have the goal of unifying Christians. Their goal is for Reformed people to abandon sola scriptura and sola fide  and join with a sect that no longer is a true Christian church.

3.The Roman Catholic blogger states, "James Swan critiqued my letter explaining my family's conversion to my PCA congregation. I found the critique something like a year later by chance, which makes me think I wasnt really his intended audience)." It is correct that many of my blog entries are not invitations to dialog and debate. Rather, your story was used to illustrate double standards and basic errors in theological epistemology for the readers of the aomin blog, so that people can be made aware of similar fallacies used by those, like yourself, that deny Christ and the church.

4. The Roman Catholic blogger states, "What I find weird is that Mr. Swan seems to view the same activity of... telling a story... as either helpful or manipulating depending on -not the way its told or the content- but on whether he agrees with what the character in the story did." The topic in question is "conversion" story, not simply, "story." Roman Catholic conversion stories, from my perspective, are not a positive movement of the Holy Spirit in a person's life, therefore, as Paul warns (Gal. 1:8), "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!"

5. The Roman Catholic blogger states, "It seems to me that according to Mr. Swan, if I were to recount the religious conversions in my life, that my describing becoming pentecostal would be manipulative on my part, describing my conversion to the Reformed faith was not manipulative, then describing conversion to Catholicism would, again, be obvious manipulation on my part. Isn't this the definition of Ad Hominem argumentation?" As stated above, one of my primary concerns is with the conversion story being used as an apologetic tool. If you put your story on the Internet as proof of the truth of Romanism, it should come as no surprise that those who disagree with Romanism will challenge the facts you put forth as well as the alleged benefits of your story.

6. The Roman Catholic blogger states, "Huh? So when the dice roll for the Reformed they are fair, but when they don't they must be loaded?" The experiences described by Mr. Lim in question were put forth as table-setters for the truth of Rome and the alleged errors of Reformed theology. The experiences related by Mr. Lim do indeed have cogent Reformed answers, but in terms of "fairness" these were not mentioned by Mr. Lim. Rather, the hero waiting in the distance was the Roman church.

7. In response to my comment, that Mr. Lim's recollections attempt to provoke one to question the validity of their own experience, the Roman Catholic blogger states, "What is wrong with this? This is how I came to faith in Christ, and later, this is how I came to be Reformed. Part of it was people telling me stories that made me question my experiences. "Maybe those things I have done are really sins after all?" "Maybe I was wrong to think otherwise?" "Maybe I need a saviour after all?" "Perhaps that gnawing feeling in my heart is my yearning for a saviour!" These are all questions we want people to ask themselves... to challenge the validity of their own experience! I guess not James Swan though."
This comment solidifies my point, and demonstrates a good reason why this particular person is now Roman Catholic. He appears to be saying he was challenged by the experiences of other people. I submit that a person like this is susceptible to be converted to almost anything. Rather, when he was a Reformed person, he should have been instructed to compare his experience to what the Word of God says, and conform his life to how God desires and instructs a Christian to live.

8. The Roman Catholic blogger states, "So the more times I empathize with a parable of Jesus am I being manipulated too? Or can a story be a way to help us relate to the truth?" Once again, my critic confuses "story" with "conversion story." Mr Lim presented his personal conversion story, not simply a story. The parables of Jesus are not personal conversion stories, they are the word of God, the ultimate standard of truth.

9.The Roman Catholic blogger states, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar Mr. Swan. People like conversion stories." Indeed, people do like to be entertained by a winning account of... almost anything. As I stated in my aomin entry: "For every Joshua Lim, there's someone "converting" to "something" somewhere out in the world. There's people that find the "fullness" of the truth in Orthodoxy as opposed to Romanism. There are people who become Muslims. There are people who become Mormons. They may even have compelling stories. They may even be former Roman Catholics. One of the ironies about conversion stories are those folks that continue having them. Take the ex-poster child for Catholic Answers, Gerry Matatics. He certainly loved to tell his story. Simply go back and listen to his debates with Dr. White. He'd tell that story every chance he could get. He'd even stay late into the night to tell it again and again. Now, go ask Karl Keating why Mr. Matatics is no longer endorsed by Catholic Answers. Similarly, how do I know that some of the current CTC stars aren't going to keep having a new conversion story? As Reformed people, if you want an infallible conversion account, you won't find such an item on the CTC blog, you'll find it in the pages of sacred Scripture." You see, David, you folks are using subjective experiences as evidence for the validity of a theological worldview. If your positive experience proves that Roman Catholicism is true, then any subjective positive experience can prove... just about anything.

10. The Roman Catholic blogger states, "And yes, being able to relate to someones thinking through a true life story of their experience is a great way to communicate. Is this really news? Think of the parable of the Good Samaritan. This story does exactly what you criticize! In this story we find Jesus is 'attempting to provoke you to question the validity of your own experience." Jesus uses a story to make us think about the question of "who is our neighbor". It is a very effective story! Was Jesus being "manipulative"? Is it true that "The more times you can empathize with [the Good Samaritan] story, the more you're being manipulated'?" Besides once again confusing a story with a conversion story, Mr. Meyer confuses the infallible Word of God with personal subjective Roman Catholic conversion stories. The Word of God is indeed the standard by which a person should be convicted of sin and exhorted to Godliness. A Roman Catholic conversion story is not such a standard. Those stories are to be scrutinized by an infallible standard. When they are, they fall quite short. They deny the sole infallible authority of the Scriptures and they promote a different Gospel.

11. The Roman Catholic blogger states, "If Reformed theology is true, James Swan has absolutly nothing to fear from these conversion stories." I don't recall anywhere stating I fear Roman Catholic conversion stories. Rather, my blog entries have simply pointed out the apologetic methodology being practiced by a many modern-day Roman Catholics. In this sense, it is no different than presenting materials on how Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons proselytize.

12. The Roman Catholic blogger states, "Nobody is going to convert to Catholicism because they are jealous of someones story." But yet, we have your words above about how influential particular stories were in your own multiple conversions. Based on your words, it's within the realm of possibility that you were indeed jealous of their experiences and wanted what they had. This may be why you've had repeated significant paradigm shifts. You're seeking an experience someone else has had rather than seeking the infallible truth of the Scriptures. Now, you've had your own conversion experience, and advertise it so others can read it. Perhaps you fit the very description of the sort of person I described in the opening paragraph of this very blog post.

13. The Roman Catholic blogger states, "Have a bit of respect for peoples intelligence. Instead of accusing people at CTC of manipulation perhaps give them the benefit of the doubt that they are trying to help people. If, I repeat IF they are trying to help people... then they are not manipulating people." If the CTC folks have as their target audience Reformed people, and if they are presenting a different infallible authority and a different Gospel other than that described in the major Reformed confessions, then the CTC folks would not be "trying to help people."

14. The Roman Catholic blogger states, "They might be wrong, and the pope might be the antichrist, but it ain't manipulation. Likewise I don't think your boss James White is being manipulative when he asks Catholics to question their beliefs about salvation or the Church. I know he does these things out of a love for the truth." Dr. White does not present conversion story after conversion story. Rather, he sticks to theological and historical facts. Within Reformed circles, there is not a tendency to write about how one became a Calvinist. Sure, we talk about it sometimes. But it is not a primary tool of evangelism, nor are our testimonies a key method of directing people toward the “fullness of truth”. Rather, when one explains the basics of Reformed theology, Bibles are open and pages are flipping. What happened to me really doesn’t matter. Rather, It’s about “what are you going to do with the clear teachings of Scripture?” “Do you see that you bring nothing to Christ and that salvation is the result of His mercy on an undeserving sinner?”

15. The Roman Catholic blogger states, "Why does Mr. Swan have to resort to ad hominems though? Well if I wanted to throw one out there myself and try to get into his head like he seems to want to get into others heads... I would say he is secretly intrigued by these stories. Perhaps a bit insecure about his theology. Perhaps he wakes up at night in a cold sweat with the smell of incense in his nostrils and Gregorian chant in his ears... pope Benedict XVI beckoning him with that humble smile he has... holding out the Eucharist. Or perhaps that little story was trying to get too much into James' head and a bit over the line." As I've posited about your experience above, such a personal comment about me is fair game, and I'll take no offense. I'll simply just say that you are completely wrong.

Dessert
A few final points need to be made. I don't claim to be the clearest writer, or even a good writer. I do assume though that I'm clear enough that people will get the basic point. For the sake of Mr. Meyer,  my recent aomin entry attempted to point out that ultimately Roman Catholic converts are entirely individualistic and subjective, all the while criticizing their former Protestant churches for being individualistic and subjective. They often criticize Protestants for having subjective interpretations of the Bible, while at the same time they have a subjective interpretation of Roman Catholicism. In fact,  the very means by which Mr. Lim arrived in Rome were the individual and subjective opinions of fallible sources, as interpreted by... Joshua Lim.

Roman Catholic conversion stories are often propped up with a facade of epistemological certainty, as opposed to the alleged blueprint for anarchy Protestantism they came from. Ultimately, you and the other batch of ex-Reformed churchman made a fallible subjective decision to join the Roman church. For every time one of you folks says something like, "How do you know which is the true church?" "How do you know which books are supposed to be in the Bible?" "How do you know what the correct interpretation of the Bible is?"  There are similar questions that can just as easily be asked of you:

1. When the Roman Catholic apologist asks, “How do you know your private interpretation of the Bible is correct over against the private interpretation of every other denomination?,” we should respond by asking a question of our own: “How do you know that your private interpretation of Roman documents is correct over against the private interpretation of other Roman Catholics?”

2. When the Roman Catholic apologist asks, “how can you be certain that you are in the truth since all you have to go on is your own fallible private judgment that your church is right?,” we should counter with a similar question: “How can you be certain that you are in the truth since all you have to go on is your own fallible private judgment that Rome is right?”

3. When the Roman Catholic apologist asks, “How do you know you’ve picked the right denomination?, we should respond by asking, “How do you know you’ve picked the right infallible interpreter?”

4. When the Roman Catholic apologist insists that the principle of Sola Scriptura has resulted in 25,000 denominations, we should in turn insist that the principle of Scripture plus an infallible interpreter has resulted in an even greater number of religious cults.

Source: Eric Svendsen, , Upon This Slippery Rock: Countering Roman Claims to Authority [New York: Calvary Press, 2002] 65-66.

Reformed Tiber Swimmers

Originally posted on the aomin blog, 07/01/2010

Here's yet another converts tale. A Reformed person swimming the Tiber has made a fallible decision to submit to a self-proclaimed infallible authority. He set out four possible authority options to submit to now that he's decided to leave his Reformed church. The one that appealed to him is the following:

Submit to a form of Christianity that does not subscribe to Sola Scriptura and which has a interpretive authority which can plausibly claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, so as to remove myself as the authority.

The submission to that authority still rests on private judgment, the very thing scorned throughout this conversion story (read it for yourself). Other infallible authorities make claims that their authority rests on plausibility. Who decides which infallible authority is plausible? Why it's none other than our potential convert. Rather than removing himself as the authority, he makes himself his own authority in choosing the correct infallible interpreter. He continues:

This makes the most sense. Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiology takes into account the fact that people will disagree about the content of Divine revelation. Not that disagreement implies errancy or fallibility, but without a magisterium that is supernaturally protected from error, there is no way for me to be sure I am getting the interpretation that is the right one.

It may make sense in theory, but in practice our convert is still left with a Bible to interpret. Neither of these alleged authorities has done a good job in infallibly interpreting the content of divine revelation. A while back I mentioned how Roman Catholic apologist Tim Staples stated "There is a lot of freedom with regard to the interpretation of Scripture." Tim affirmed that even the verses infallibly defined by the Roman Catholic Church "are left open to other interpretations as long as you don't deny that which has been infallibly interpreted." How many verses has Rome defined? Some say only a small handful of verses have an infallible interpretation, others deny the Church has defined the literal sense of any single passage. Roman Catholics aren't even united on a basic issue like the inerrancy of Scripture.

The problem for Roman Catholics is compounded even more, because the church also says that a doctrine can be defined, but the scriptural proofs used to support it utilized by the church's theologians might not actually support it. In other words, one can have certainty for a doctrine, but not have certainty in the scriptural proof texts for that doctrine. The infallibility is in the decree, not in the reasoning to that decree. The Catholic Encyclopedia states, ''the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached." Note the words of Roman Catholic theologian, Johann Mohler: "Catholic theologians teach with general concurrence, and quite in the spirit of the Church, that even a Scriptural proof in favour of a decree held to be infallible, is not itself infallible, but only the dogma as defined." [Source: Johann Adam Mohler, Symbolism: Exposition of the doctrinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants as evidenced by their Symbolic Writings, trans James Burton Robertson (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1997), p.296].

As to a "a magisterium that is supernaturally protected from error" our Tiber swimmer needs to answer fundamental questions. Isn't this simply a presuppositional claim? On what basis does one determine a church is infallible? It is merely assumed. All sola ecclesia groups assume their authority. In regards to Romanism, when asked how the Roman Catholic Church can establish her authority, notice it's most often proved by the testimony of the Scriptures. That is, they will rarely admit to simply assuming it. Rather they quote a handful of Biblical proof-texts. This is a circular argument. Roman Catholics prove the authority of the Scriptures by the Church, and the authority of the Church by the Scriptures.

In regard to being sure he's got the right interpretation once he joins Romanism, once again he ignores the simple fact that it's his decision to trust in Romanism. He'll never be able to escape himself and his own fallible decisions. His certainty will always be a fallible certainty because he's fallible. He continues:

If I am able to toss out the 7th ecumenical council (as nearly all Protestants do) because it doesn't match my interpretation, where will the tossing out stop? If church councils themselves are to be judged by a 21st century layman, theologically untrained, and unordained Christian like me, what is the point then of church councils other than to provide some really good advise from some really great men from the history of our faith? If they were not being guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit in these councils, with the expectation that all believers should submit to their decisions, then what use are they other than to help me form my own interpretation to submit to? The ecclesiologies that claim to have living, breathing successors of the apostles which are Divinely gifted with the ability to define doctrine in certain situations are the only ecclesiologies that make sense.

I have nothing against the church meeting in council, but this type of argument assumes more than some of the early councils did. Did they think they were infallible? This is pure anachronism. The Fathers did not profess to be the standard of truth, either in or out of council.

This paradigm also suffers from ignoring the church of the Old Testament. God's people were able to discern God's voice and work, this without an infallible magisterium. They knew which books were Scripture (Romans 3:2) without the aid of any infallible authoritative conciliar declaration. Christ and the apostles held the Jews responsible for knowing and properly interpreting the Scriptures. Never once is it recorded in Scripture that the Jews complained that they didn't have an infallible magisterium. It was assumed by the New Testament writers that God's truth was clear.

As conversion stories go, this one was a typical example of someone who bought the claims of Roman Catholicism without applying the same scrutiny to Romanism. It's one thing to tear down sola scriptura, it's quite another to apply the same scrutiny to Romanism. If one is going to argue against the sole infallible authority of Scripture, they should at least work just as hard to apply the same standards of scrutiny to their new infallible authority. Let's try to point this Reformed Tiber swimmer back to the right shore. I'm fairly confident he'll be reading this, so he can begin with this Primer On Roman Catholic Epistemology. He can follow this up with a positive defense of sola scriptura.

John Lennon and Christianity?

Recently from Fox News: Jesus, Reagan and John Lennon -- What Secrets Has Yoko Ono Been Keeping From Us?

I came across something like this a few years ago via Chris Arnzen's Iron Sharpens Iron program. His guest, Peter Jones claims to be a childhood friend of John Lennon's. On one of these shows Jones mentioned something like John Lennon became a Christian shortly before his death, but Yoko is keeping such a revelation secret. I discounted Jones at the time, because if I recall, he quoted the Beatles song "Can't Buy Me Love" and said John was searching for something when he wrote that. If my limited Beatles knowledge is correct, "Can't Buy Me Love" was primarily written by Paul McCartney, if not completely. A Beatles expert can jump in and let me know if I've got that right.

Even if it were true, mega-conversion stories really don't mean all that much to me. Christianity isn't more true because someone famous embraces the Christian faith. Nor are conversion tales reliable. Back in the 1970's Eldridge Cleaver was put forth as a Black Panther who went to jail and became a Christian. His book Soul on Fire recounts the tale. He went on to dabble with the Moonies, and then Mormonism.

I realize Paul was in a sense a "mega convert" during his time period. Paul's "story" was actually inscripturated, so if I'm going to tell any sort of "conversion story" in either an apologetic effort or outreach, that's one of the stories I might use. I'd rather stick with a conversion story that has a divine pedigree, and was written by the Holy Spirit.

Addendum:

Here's another mega convert story.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A word about "intellectual converts"

I've been asked several times (and it's been pointed out to me from the other side) that, while there is a steady stream of people out of Roman Catholicism, there's also a small but vocal group of "really smart people" who are converting to Rome. How do we account for that?

Here's a post that I've found in several places. Arturo Vasquez is what you might call a real, life-long Roman Catholic. His bio says he is a native of Hollister, California, who spent five years in religious life as a seminarian and a monk. He has no trouble criticizing these "converts":

One common thread that I find in these English Catholic converts such as Baring, Chesterton, and to a much lesser extent, Waugh, is that they have some sort of nostalgia for something that they know nothing about. Or they are at the very least nostalgic for something that they feel is missing in their post-Victorian, rationalistic, dry lives. Newman probably is the one who started that mess, with his desire to find the pristine Apostolic church, only to suffer from afar the cronyism and realpolitik of the court of Pio Nono[the infallible pope Pius IX]. The protagonist in the Barring novel “finds his humanity” in the tumultuous melting pot of 19th century Russia, with all of its politicial and cultural anachronisms slamming full speed into the modern age. Chesterton’s schtick always seems to boil down to pointing out how “medieval superstition” is so much more rational than skeptical modernity. In other words, their message always seems to be a variation of: “Want to be a better modern? Try Catholicism.”

I have a couple of major objections to such a formula. One is that I don’t think it has the slightest clue as to what Catholicism and its culture actually are in any real historic sense. Perhaps here I am thinking most of the “peasant Catholicism” that I saw in my family growing up, or even the cultural Catholicism you saw in Italy. I don’t think such cultures can carry the ideological burden that they seem to place on it. Real life is a far cry from romanticist fantasy.

This meshes nicely with a comment about Chesterton that was floating around several months ago:

"In these books [his later Catholic non-fiction works] Chesterton becomes a Pangloss of the parish; anything Roman is right. It is hard to credit that even a convinced Catholic can feel equally strongly about St. Francis's intuitive mysticism and St. Thomas's pedantic religiosity, as Chesterton seems to. His writing suffers from conversion sickness. Converts tend to see the faith they were raised in as an exasperatingly makeshift and jury-rigged system: Anglican converts to Catholicism are relieved not to have to defend Henry VIII's divorces; Jewish converts to Christianity are relieved to get out from under the weight of all those strange Levitical laws on animal hooves. The newly adopted faith, they imagine, is a shining, perfectly balanced system, an intricately worked clock where the cosmos turns to tell the time and the cuckoo comes out singing every Sunday. An outsider sees the Church as a dreamy compound of incense and impossibility, and, overglamorizing its pretensions, underrates its adaptability. A Frenchman or an Italian, even a devout one, can see the Catholic Church as a normally bureaucratic human institution, the way patriotic Americans see the post office, recognizing the frailty and even the occasional psychosis of its employees without doubting its necessity or its ability to deliver the message. Chesterton writing about the Church is like someone who has just made his first trip to the post office. Look, it delivers letters for the tiny price of a stamp! You write an address on a label, and they will send it anywhere, literally anywhere you like, across a continent and an ocean, in any weather! The fact that the post office attracts timeservers, or has produced an occasional gun massacre, is only proof of the mystical enthusiasm that the post alone provides! Glorifying the postman beyond what the postman can bear is what you do only if you're new to mail."

Emphasis supplied. Of course, I'm sure that not all of the intellectual converts can be described this way.

Interesting Exit Interview

This is old news for some, but another Roman Catholic epologist deconverted a while back to agnosticism. I vaguely remember this guy. Quite a few years back I recall being on his discussion board, and being politely edited, along with a Roman Catholic apologist. He told us to take our disagreements elsewhere, if I recall.

On his way out the door of Romanism, he made an interesting point:

Catholics think people are so humble when they consider Catholicism, but so arrogant and proud when they question Catholicism. You really can't have it both ways. J. wants special treatment because Catholicism is "different." Don't you think everybody else thinks they're different too? The Orthodox? The 7th Day Adventists? The Mormons? Everybody makes a case that their position warrants some special deference for whatever reason. And when arguments fail, everybody falls back on the same "you're not being humble / teachable" excuse. It just doesn't fly. [source]

VLog #3- The Use of Conversion Stories In Apologetics

I recorded this on Wednesday, prompted by the de-conversion story of a Roman Catholic blogger. I see from the comment box, more tenets of Roman Catholicism besides a particular understanding of development of doctrine is being jettisoned.

Update: If you ever want to generate blog traffic, announce a conversion or de-conversion. David Waltz doesn't have a site meter, but the prophet in me (lol) says the comment section will continue to build.